Disputatio:Litterae Britanniae

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Pagina huic coniuncta e conversione paginae „British literature“ sitús en.wikipedia.org orta est.
Auctoribus illius paginae hic enumeratis gratias agimus.
Die angegliederte Seite basiert ursprünglich auf einer Übersetzung von British literature aus en.wikipedia.org. Eine Liste der Autoren ist hier verfügbar.
English language
The attached page originated as a translation from the page "British literature" on the site en.wikipedia.org.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.

Titulus[fontem recensere]

This title ["Litterae Britanniarum Regni"] doesn't equate to the en:wiki title. This title excludes Anglo-Saxon literature, because they stopped writing it at least 700 years before the United Kingdom existed; it excludes the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, which are not part of the UK. Beowulf and Chaucer, though illustrated, don't seem relevant to it. "Litterae Britannicae", on the other hand, would equate to the en:wiki title and would work better: it would cover Beowulf and Chaucer, because Britain is the island [the relevant works come from]. I propose moving to that title.

Under either title it will be improper to exclude British literature in other languages than English, and there is no reason why the coverage of Anglo-Latin and Anglo-Norman should be especially focused on their contribution to English-language literature. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:35, 9 Augusti 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the bibliography, works about "English literature" might of course be cited in the text, but in general they aren't really on topic: it would be better to cut the general bibliography to works that are precisely about "British literature", or maybe to add separate sections for works about literature in the single British languages. (This is assuming we move to "Litterae Britannicae". With the current title, the bibliography would have to be pruned even more!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 10 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
Your rule generally prescribing adjectives for languages (hence Litterae Anglicae, literature in English, not of England, which, following your rule for genitives of place, is Litterae Angliae), would make the topic of Litterae Britannicae be literature in the Britannic language (whatever that might be), but this article is in a collection of place-based articles: litterae Australiae, litterae Civitatum Foederatarum, litterae Canadae, and so forth. Perhaps you'd be happiest with Litterae Magnae Britanniae or, if Monapia and the channel islands still remained a problem, that plus et insularum propinquarum, or, if the Republic of Ireland needed to be excluded (though it's a polity and not an island), plus praeter Hiberniam Rem Publicam? But Litterae Magna Britanniae et insularum propinquarum praeter Hiberniam Rem Publicam seems a bit long and fussy. Or, since Britain in English is synonymous with 'the UK' (hear "Rule, Britannia!"), perhaps Litterae Britanniae, Monapiae, et Insularum Normannicarum would work? ¶ As for bibliographies, no need to exclude works that treat part of a topic, rather than the whole. An article on Beethoven wouldn't necessarily want to exclude a study of the symphonies or a study of the effects of deafness on his style. Also, since this is one of the 10,000 famous articles, the game being played at Meta suggests that addition, rather than subtraction, is the wilier strategy here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:18, 10 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
Surely Vicipaedia needs pagenames to be clear, simple, in good Latin. If you are developing that series of articles (I didn't realise) the best name for this member of the existing group, matching the others, might be "Litterae Britanniae" -- "Magnae" being optional :) -- but the use of a genitive rather than an adjective in these titles is your choice: I haven't commented on it so far as I remember.
I mentioned the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands only because I was responding to the text as you've written it so far. Same with the bibliography, really: obviously it'll develop as you write.
We agree on the difference between Litterae Anglicae and your suggested "Litterae Angliae"! Also on some other things. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 10 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
Thinking about the adjective/genitive question further, and in case your Litterae Samoanae indicates your own real preference, there is another perfectly good way to make the distinction in pagenames between "Literature in a language" and "Literature from a place" assuming the language and the place share the same Latin adjective -- as is true of Samoan, English, Spanish and others. We can call pages about literature of Samoa etc. (in any language) "Litterae Samoanae", "Litterae Canadenses", etc., and a page about literature in English, etc., "Litterae Anglice scriptae", "Litterae Samoane scriptae", "Litterae Hispanice scriptae" etc. No reason against it that I know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:15, 10 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
Something worth further thought! The cited distinction—of adjective in the nominative versus noun in the genitive—is regularly found among the categories, for example, Auctores Anglici 'English(-language) authors' and Scriptores Angliae 'English(-nation) writers', here reinforced by the contrast of auctores and scriptores. Meanwhile, however, let's go with Litterae Britanniae. A useful feature of the wikis is that nothing is carved in stone. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:25, 10 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
How true!
I suspect Britannia will be disposing of its title "Magna" some day soon, if anyone makes a good offer. Would it suit the Civitates Foederatae Americae by any chance? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:41, 10 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
Not in the land at large, where the national magnitude is more than adequate to the times, but you could try advertising among the credulous few who feel themselves in want of some supposedly lapsed greatness. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:03, 11 Augusti 2019 (UTC)